Members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to put one question or statement of not more than 3 minutes duration relating to items on Part 1 of the agenda only. If a question is asked and answered within 3 minutes the person who asked the question may ask a supplementary question that arises from the reply. A person wishing to speak must register to speak at least 15 minutes before the meeting is scheduled to start. There is an overall time limit of 15 minutes for public speaking which may be extended at the Chairman’s discretion.
Minutes:
[Councillor Peter Thompson arrived at 5.04pm during the consideration of this item].
Mr Peter Newlands, being the objector to the proposed diversion addressed the Committee on Item 4 on the agenda; Highways Act 1980 Section 119 – Application to Divert Part of Rougham Public Footpath No: 7. Following his presentation to the Committee on 29 January 2019, he trusted the Committee’s path inspection team enjoyed the exquisite public amenity that was the current position of this Right of Way across the Water Cottage garden. He felt it would be a massive public disservice should the Committee decide to agree to place the line of the path behind a hedge, as proposed, as this would hide the view away from the public enjoyment, which it had for more than 100 years, if not more. He then provided the following additional information:
Looking from the West to East of Rougham Footpath No: 7, from point H on the map to the second stile, the tree lined path was obvious. These path lining trees were between 100 and 200 years old. The path line continued with a beech hedge on the left to an indicator post shown in application photograph number 2. Before the previous Water Cottage owners (who set the path diversion ball rolling after they took residence in late 2011) moved the post, depicted in photograph 1 to its current location. If you had stood by the post in photograph 2, the next post in line, photograph 1, was clearly visible to the right of the tree in front of you. Currently the post was hidden by the tree trunk following its repositioning from 4 to 5 metres nearer to Water Cottage and south of the cottage driveway. Walking the line from the photograph 2 post to photograph 1 post’s old position, described above, puts you on a trajectory through the middle of the stable yard, along the join of old and new concrete, to cross the ditch (map point D) along the eastern railway sleeper of the current ditch crossing. This was the ditch crossing point before 2012 and was always barrier free.
In 2011, following a report I submitted, SCC replaced the old crossing sleepers as they were too dangerous to use. The new sleepers installed were redeployed in 2012 by the previous owners of Water Cottage in their construction of the ditch crossing as it was today. I alerted the Rights of Way department to the alterations made. They insisted that a new, but dangerously designed stile was removed and settled for the current walkers’ gate in its place, but unfortunately, denied my request to insist on moving the line of the path back to where it had been for at least my previous 25 years of using it.
The current owners of Water Cottage had inherited a Rights of Way office condoned non-approved alteration that the Committee might think was the “original” line.
The report before you suggests that the use of the path was purely for recreational use. However, not for me it’s not as I use it as a traveller uses the A14. Therefore my objection to the application stands.
Councillor Karen Soons, Suffolk County Councillor for Thingoe South Ward, which included the parish of Rougham, addressed the Committee on Item 4 on the agenda; Highways Act 1980 Section 119 – Application to Divert Part of Rougham Public Footpath No: 7. She informed members that she had spoken with Rougham Parish Council and was also speaking on their behalf. Rougham Parish Council and herself were concerned about spending taxpayers money to divert the footpath. If there was a way to avoid using taxpayers money to achieve this then she believed the Parish Council and herself would be supportive of the diversion.
Mrs Davina Strong, being the applicant for the proposed diversion addressed the Committee on Item 4 on the agenda; Highways Act 1980 Section 119 – Application to Divert Part of Rougham Public Footpath No: 7. She was sorry she was not at home when the site visit took place, but appreciated members taking the time to visit. She stressed she and her husband were trying to resolve a problem inherited when it was brought to their attention by Patrick Scrivens that St Edmundsbury Borough Council and Suffolk County Council (SCC) had way-marked the walked route when it was not actually the legal, definitive route. A solution had to be found and the status quo could not remain. The current proposal, formulated with Sharon Berry and SCC officers met the criteria set out in the Highways Act and would solve the problem. It would also give us, as owners, greater security. The problem was if the Order failed to be made, then SCC would have to undertake a costly (£3,000 - £10,000) Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to align the definitive route with the walked route. SCC were aware a mistake had been made and were prepared to contribute financially towards the proposed solution. There was some misconception about the cost, but the present proposal, even if objected to, would be minimal in comparison to the cost of a DMMO.
Finally, this was a very small diversion from the walked path. The route was used for pleasure. Nobody objects to an extra few seconds on a walk. It would be clearly defined, easier underfoot, avoiding walkers feeling intrusive or embarrassed. It would actually enhance public enjoyment of the path as a whole. It also offered greater safety for our grandchildren and would allow us to shepherd walker’s dogs more easily.
Mr Glen Strong, being the applicant for the proposed diversion addressed the Committee on Item 4 on the agenda; Highways Act 1980 Section 119 – Application to Divert Part of Rougham Public Footpath No: 7. He was grateful to the Councillors who were able to find time to visit Water Cottage. Throughout this long, highly stressful process we had nothing but support from members of the community, apart from Mr Newlands objections. Without his objections, which had been contradictory over the years, the whole matter would have been agreed a long time ago, incurring minimal costs. We had agreed to contribute up to £500 towards the cost of making the Order along with SCC’s £300 this should cost St Edmundsbury Borough Council nothing. We had discussed our case with the Rights of Way Section of the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who would deal with any objection submitted to the Secretary of State and it was worth noting that:
- Firstly, the case would be dealt with by written representations only, which was the lowest level possible.
- Secondly, the Council would just have to submit paperwork already produced.
- Finally, the Planning Inspectorate would review the material, visit the site and make a decision. There would be no charge by the Planning Inspectorate for any of this.
We had also agreed to fund up to £1,000 which we were led to believe would fully cover the costs, if an objection was made to the Secretary of State. My wife and I cannot see why there should be a problem with such a small change to the path, that also sorts out all definitive map issues. We fail to understand why this could be derailed by one person when the community at large was so supportive. We both appreciate your time with this matter.
The Chairman thanked the public speakers for their attendance and contribution to the meeting.